from the world's big
New study reveals what time we burn the most calories
Once again, our circadian rhythm points the way.
- Seven individuals were locked inside a windowless, internetless room for 37 days.
- While at rest, they burned 130 more calories at 5 p.m. than at 5 a.m.
- Morning time again shown not to be the best time to eat.
Dualism has left a marked imprint on modern consciousness. Mind-body is an industry, including a host of philosophical protocols, physical practices, breathing exercises, juice cleanses, crystals, nootropics, and other assorted tchotchkes guaranteed to bridge the divide between brain and limbs. Thing is, that bridge is built into the framework of our animal nature. Our nervous system links everything physical and neurological.
The role of our nervous system isn't only internal communications. Environment matters equally. Genetics gets us to the first finish line, crossing the amniotic threshold to fresh oxygen. Then we're introduced to another starting line: nine months of hard work only to discover the work has only just begun.
For most of history, "exercise" didn't exist. A more appropriate term would be "survival." Physicality is our birthright. Movement is what we do. The expansive list of technologies we've created to offload labor has brought with it previously unthinkable diseases. In eradicating certain ailments thanks to our cognitive prowess — through vaccines, medicines, and proactive best practices — we've introduced (or made ourselves more susceptible to) diseases of affluence. Not moving makes us sick.
While in-depth research on how movement affects our brain makes for powerful advertising to the unmotivated, as well as verification that the motivated have reason for their drive, it still falls into the realm of basic common sense. Only a culture that doesn't move enough would be surprised that moving is good for them.
Yet we live in two cultures, in politics and fitness and much more. On one side, a population addicted to exercise often to the point of obsession (and self-obsession, which poses its own dangers); the other, an obesity epidemic costing the nation $147 billion annually.
There are many previously understood realities we've lost touch with. Perhaps our ancestors didn't possess our intellectual heft, but they knew how to live inside of their environment. They had no choice. Imagination offers an escape, yet you couldn't dwell there too long; there were duties to attend to and scarier animals to fend off. We're safer than ever before, and along with that peace of security, we're also sicker.
Among the many pieces of knowledge we've lost, one that keeps appearing is the necessity of understanding circadian rhythm. One recent study found that a simple blood test can reveal your best sleep practices by tapping into your optimal circadian rhythm. Now a new study, published in Cell Biology, reveals another fascinating piece of evidence as to how our bodies interact with our environment: in a resting state we burn more calories in the afternoon than at any time of day.
The study itself would be a nightmare for most of us: seven individuals, locked inside of a windowless, clockless, internetless room for 37 days. They were given a prescribed diet and sleep times. Their job was inactivity. As study coauthor Jeanne Duffy says,
Because they were doing the equivalent of circling the globe every week, their body's internal clock could not keep up, and so it oscillated at its own pace. This allowed us to measure metabolic rate at all different biological times of day.
The lowest calorie burn was 5 a.m. The highest, 5 p.m. Roughly 130 extra calories were burned in the early evening hours than early in the morning. What this means, practically, is you likely don't want to roll out of bed and start pushing calories into your mouth.
Photo credit: Eduardo Flores on Unsplash
This squares with other recent studies, most notably disturbing research that tracked how many hours per day most people eat: over half the people studied eat over a 15-hour time span. Subtract sleep and they're basically eating from first thing in the morning until right before going to bed. On the earlier side, this might result in unintended negative consequences. Duffy comments,
We may be eating that breakfast not only at a time when our body might not be prepared to deal with it, but at a time when we need less energy to maintain our functions. Therefore, the same breakfast might result in extra stored calories, because we don't need those to maintain our body functions.
As the feeding window research suggests, one of the most powerful means for maintaining optimal weight might be closing the feeding window by about half. Just as eating directly after waking up isn't a time-honored tradition, neither is continuing to eat until sleep comes.
There is no singular answer as to how we've gotten ourselves into such a weird situation with our eating and movement habits. It's a matter of electricity plus travel plus food storage and transportation plus modern work conditions plus technology draining our attentional capacities and willpower — the list goes on. Yet here we are.
At a time when "connection" is the promise of every emergent technology, we seem to disconnect more and more from our environment. Virtual reality isn't that fun if Body 1.0 is a mess. The escape into alternative universes might temporarily solve the physical and psychological distress inherent in "reality" due to a rush of good-feeling neurochemicals, but like any addiction the high doesn't last.
Separating consciousness from our bodies has been a long pursuit. It seems the closer we get, the faster we're chasing nowhere. We are products of our environment. Our refusal to accept such only causes more pain. We might not honor sun gods any longer, but we can at least take refuge in the profound wisdom offered by following that star's path. Every other rhythm just throws us off-beat.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.